Re: Status of 1.5 ?
Hi Tim, On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 05:09:54PM +0100, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > > So we could say that if anything really critical must happen to 1.5, it > > must happen within one month for it to get a fix and after that it's too > > late. > > End of the year passed by now :-) Oh yes you're right, each time I thought about sending the announce I was not close to a keyboard. So yes, now 1.5 reached end of life and is unmaintained. I'm going to update the web page. Thanks for the reminder! Willy
Re: Status of 1.5 ?
Willy, Am 26.11.19 um 13:57 schrieb Willy Tarreau: > So it looks like the most reasonable thing to do is to drop it at the end > of this year, or exactly 3 years after the last update to the branch! I > don't expect it to require any new fix at all to be honest. Those using > it for SSL should really upgrade to something more recent, at least to > benefit from more recent openssl versions (1.0.1 was probably the last > supported one) and those who don't need SSL likely didn't even upgrade > to 1.5 anyway ;-) > > So we could say that if anything really critical must happen to 1.5, it > must happen within one month for it to get a fix and after that it's too > late. End of the year passed by now :-) Best regards Tim Düsterhus
Re: Status of 1.5 ?
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 08:28:51AM -0600, Dave Chiluk wrote: > Ubuntu 16.04 is on 1.6 which is bug-fix "supported" till 2021. It's > probably fine to deprecate next year. > Ubuntu 18.04 is on 1.8 which is bug-fix "supported" till 2023. > > Debian has 1.8 in their stable and 2.0.9 in unstable, but I'm not as > familiar with their release cycles. > RHEL/Centos 7 haproxy package is on 1.5, but they've also provided a > rh-haproxy18 which provides 1.8. > > AFAICT from a distro perspective you are pretty good to kill off 1.5. Thanks for the check. Yes that was my impression as well. Overall we've kept all versions at least 5 years for now (5.5 years for 1.5), which is a lot in web environments! I think we can stay on that trend, as usually when nobody complains anymore about bugs on a version, it means it's not used anymore, or at least that nobody needs fixes anymore :-) > Dave. > FYI, I'm an Ubuntu Dev if you ever need one. OK good to know, thanks! Willy
Re: Status of 1.5 ?
Ubuntu 16.04 is on 1.6 which is bug-fix "supported" till 2021. It's probably fine to deprecate next year. Ubuntu 18.04 is on 1.8 which is bug-fix "supported" till 2023. Debian has 1.8 in their stable and 2.0.9 in unstable, but I'm not as familiar with their release cycles. RHEL/Centos 7 haproxy package is on 1.5, but they've also provided a rh-haproxy18 which provides 1.8. AFAICT from a distro perspective you are pretty good to kill off 1.5. Dave. FYI, I'm an Ubuntu Dev if you ever need one. On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 7:00 AM Willy Tarreau wrote: > > Hi Vincent, > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 01:33:30PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: > > ? 25 octobre 2019 11:27 +02, Willy Tarreau : > > > > > Now I'm wondering, is anyone interested in this branch to still be > > > maintained ? Should I emit a new release with a few pending fixes > > > just to flush the pipe and pursue its "critical fixes only" status a > > > bit further, or should we simply declare it unmaintained ? I'm fine > > > with either option, it's just that I hate working for no reason, and > > > this version was released a bit more than 5 years ago now, so I can > > > easily expect that it has few to no user by now. > > > > > > Please just let me know what you think, > > > > What's the conclusion? :) > > Oh you're right, I wanted to mention it yesterday but the e-mail delivery > issues derailed my focus a bit... > > So it looks like the most reasonable thing to do is to drop it at the end > of this year, or exactly 3 years after the last update to the branch! I > don't expect it to require any new fix at all to be honest. Those using > it for SSL should really upgrade to something more recent, at least to > benefit from more recent openssl versions (1.0.1 was probably the last > supported one) and those who don't need SSL likely didn't even upgrade > to 1.5 anyway ;-) > > So we could say that if anything really critical must happen to 1.5, it > must happen within one month for it to get a fix and after that it's too > late. > > Cheers, > Willy >
Re: Status of 1.5 ?
Hi Vincent, On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 01:33:30PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ? 25 octobre 2019 11:27 +02, Willy Tarreau : > > > Now I'm wondering, is anyone interested in this branch to still be > > maintained ? Should I emit a new release with a few pending fixes > > just to flush the pipe and pursue its "critical fixes only" status a > > bit further, or should we simply declare it unmaintained ? I'm fine > > with either option, it's just that I hate working for no reason, and > > this version was released a bit more than 5 years ago now, so I can > > easily expect that it has few to no user by now. > > > > Please just let me know what you think, > > What's the conclusion? :) Oh you're right, I wanted to mention it yesterday but the e-mail delivery issues derailed my focus a bit... So it looks like the most reasonable thing to do is to drop it at the end of this year, or exactly 3 years after the last update to the branch! I don't expect it to require any new fix at all to be honest. Those using it for SSL should really upgrade to something more recent, at least to benefit from more recent openssl versions (1.0.1 was probably the last supported one) and those who don't need SSL likely didn't even upgrade to 1.5 anyway ;-) So we could say that if anything really critical must happen to 1.5, it must happen within one month for it to get a fix and after that it's too late. Cheers, Willy
Re: Status of 1.5 ?
❦ 25 octobre 2019 11:27 +02, Willy Tarreau : > Now I'm wondering, is anyone interested in this branch to still be > maintained ? Should I emit a new release with a few pending fixes > just to flush the pipe and pursue its "critical fixes only" status a > bit further, or should we simply declare it unmaintained ? I'm fine > with either option, it's just that I hate working for no reason, and > this version was released a bit more than 5 years ago now, so I can > easily expect that it has few to no user by now. > > Please just let me know what you think, What's the conclusion? :) -- Anyone who has had a bull by the tail knows five or six more things than someone who hasn't. -- Mark Twain
Re: Status of 1.5 ?
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 08:57:01AM +0100, Baptiste wrote: > I tend to agree on setting 1.5 as EOL. > About 1.6 and 1.7, they could be EOLed in the next 2 years too, as Aleks > stated, it will "enforce" people to use the latest shiny releases :) I was more or less thinking about doing 1.6 next year and 1.7 the year after but am really undecided on this. Both versions work really well and do not require many maintenance efforts. 1.8 changed a lot of low level things since, and probably that keeping one of these "pre-mux era" versions available for some more time does make sense, at least for those who never intend to upgrade :-) Willy
Re: Status of 1.5 ?
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 3:54 PM Aleksandar Lazic wrote: > Hi. > > Am 25.10.2019 um 11:27 schrieb Willy Tarreau: > > Hi all, > > > > I'm just wondering what to do with 1.5. I've checked and it didn't > > receive any fix in almost 3 years. The ones recently merged into 1.6 > > that were possible candidates for 1.5 were not critical enough to > > warrant a new release for a long time. > > > > Now I'm wondering, is anyone interested in this branch to still be > > maintained ? Should I emit a new release with a few pending fixes > > just to flush the pipe and pursue its "critical fixes only" status a > > bit further, or should we simply declare it unmaintained ? I'm fine > > with either option, it's just that I hate working for no reason, and > > this version was released a bit more than 5 years ago now, so I can > > easily expect that it has few to no user by now. > > > > Please just let me know what you think, > > Well from my point of view is 1.5 not bad bud pretty old. There are some > distributions which still use 1.5 and maintain it, from my point of view > should > they switch to 1.8 as this is a LTS version. I know that's a pretty easy > statement but, that's it. > > Due to the fact that we have now 5 (1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9,2.0,2.1) Versions > which are > maintained I suggest to declare 1.5 as EOL, maybe we should also consider > to do > this also with 1.6 and 1.7. > > When we look into the current changes of the Network and the current and > upcoming challenges, QUIC/HTTP/3, ESNI, Containerized Setups, dynamic > reconfiguration and so on I would like to see that the focus is mainly on > that > new challenges. > > Jm2c. > > > Thanks, > > Willy > > Best Regards > Aleks > > Hi, I tend to agree on setting 1.5 as EOL. About 1.6 and 1.7, they could be EOLed in the next 2 years too, as Aleks stated, it will "enforce" people to use the latest shiny releases :) Baptiste
Re: Status of 1.5 ?
Hi. Am 25.10.2019 um 11:27 schrieb Willy Tarreau: Hi all, I'm just wondering what to do with 1.5. I've checked and it didn't receive any fix in almost 3 years. The ones recently merged into 1.6 that were possible candidates for 1.5 were not critical enough to warrant a new release for a long time. Now I'm wondering, is anyone interested in this branch to still be maintained ? Should I emit a new release with a few pending fixes just to flush the pipe and pursue its "critical fixes only" status a bit further, or should we simply declare it unmaintained ? I'm fine with either option, it's just that I hate working for no reason, and this version was released a bit more than 5 years ago now, so I can easily expect that it has few to no user by now. Please just let me know what you think, Well from my point of view is 1.5 not bad bud pretty old. There are some distributions which still use 1.5 and maintain it, from my point of view should they switch to 1.8 as this is a LTS version. I know that's a pretty easy statement but, that's it. Due to the fact that we have now 5 (1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9,2.0,2.1) Versions which are maintained I suggest to declare 1.5 as EOL, maybe we should also consider to do this also with 1.6 and 1.7. When we look into the current changes of the Network and the current and upcoming challenges, QUIC/HTTP/3, ESNI, Containerized Setups, dynamic reconfiguration and so on I would like to see that the focus is mainly on that new challenges. Jm2c. Thanks, Willy Best Regards Aleks
